DBsantos77

January 24, 2010 at 12:03pm

 Was it that bad?

-Santos

curley60

January 25, 2010 at 7:20am

Most MaximumPC readers are much more savvy than your regular pc user.  As a simple IT tech, these people think P2P means person 2 person or is some other IM software.  If you were to buy a watch from a street vendor then be arrested for having the item, the item is usually taken away and you are advised that only street vendors with permits displayed are the only legal vendors.  If the RIAA knows of people who are illegally sharing, music or otherwise, isn't it their responsibility to inform these individuals or do they wait, bait, and wave their mighty sword. 

This is going to get worse because it is soooo easy to enable multimedia sharing in Windows 7 that most people may be sharing music without knowing it.  I charge extra to remove a virus if the person has the same illegal software on their computer the second time it is brought to me because the 1st time I educate them as to what software to stay away from.  

I and a few members of my family and friends have stopped buying music, digital or otherwise.  I know it will not make a dent in the music industry sales, but it does keep us from worrying about being prosecuted for mistakenly infringing on other peoples property.  I recommend this to my clients as well.  I recommend that they not embed music into their FaceBook or Myspace page or any home videos they make and plan on posting on YouTube.   

The internet IP address is a digital recording device of everything you do while connected to the internet.  I guess in the end, you are right, especially if they were serviced by me, they never should have registered or used that software.

 

Curley60 

mesiah

January 22, 2010 at 10:01pm

Brutally murdered? Don't be a moron. I know most people that frequent this site side with the defendant because she is guilty of a crime we have all committed at one time or another. The funny thing is, no matter what the fine ended up being everyone was still outraged by it. And the rationalization that most people use is that she was sharing 24 songs at $1 a song thats a big fat $24 worth of music. What you don't consider for a second (or refuse to consider) is that she isn't being sued for stealing the songs, she is being sued for DISTRIBUTING them. She distributed them via a p2p network. Say only 5 people downloaded each song from her. That brings the total to $120. Then 5 people download the songs from the second generation owners. Now you are looking at $600. By the time you get to only the 5th generation you are looking at $15,000. In the world of P2P it could take mere days, or even hours for a song to be passed from one person to another 5 times. 5 more generations and you are up to $46.875 MILLION DOLLARS.

So, in the scheme of things, $54k is easily less than a dollar for each copy of a song that was generated because of her unlawful distribution. In reality, the $2M fine is most likely less than $1 per song generated to date.

Have a copied music before? Yes. Do I realise that I broke the law? Yes. If I were to punished for sharing that music would I be angry at the music industry? No, I would be angry at myself for knowingly breaking the law and getting cought. I certainly wont be planning to murder anyone. I hate DRM and the RIAA just as much as the next person. I feel that it very much hinders free use. But even though they may be stepping on our rights, that doesn't give us the right to steal. Now I will get down from my soap box. Good day.

mesiah

January 22, 2010 at 10:15pm

Don't quote me on this, but most searches show that the average settlement offered by the RIAA at the time she was charged was around 2-4 thousand dollars. Just goes to show, if you break the law, sometimes is just best if you fess up to it and take your punishment.